Term: 2021
Docket: 20-659
Thompson v. Clark
- Pro
20-659 THOMPSON V. CLARK DECISION BELOW: 794 Fed.Appx. 140 ORDER OF MARCH 11, 2021: LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 3/8/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: I. Whether the rule that a plaintiff must await favorable termination before bringing a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process requires the plaintiff to show that the criminal proceeding against him has “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” Laskar v. Hurd, 972 F.3d 1278, 1293 (11th Cir. 2020), or that the proceeding “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence,” Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2018); see also Laskar, 972 F.3d at 1293 (acknowledging 7-1 circuit conflict). II. Where a Section 1983 plaintiff brings a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful warrantless entry of his home and the government pursues a justification of exigent circumstances, does the government have the burden to prove exigency existed (as the Third, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have held), or does the plaintiff have to prove its non-existence (as the Second, Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-580
Thompson v. Clark is a United States Supreme Court case that addresses the issue of whether or not an individual can be held liable for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) if they are acting as an employer’s agent. The court ruled in favor of Thompson, finding that employers may be held liable under FLSA when their agents violate its provisions. In this case, Thompson was employed by Clark to perform certain tasks related to his business and was paid on a commission basis rather than being classified as an employee with set wages and benefits. When he sued Clark for failing to pay him minimum wage and overtime compensation, the lower courts found in favor of Thompson because it determined that he had been acting as Clark's agent while performing his duties. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, ruling that employers may indeed be held responsible for violations committed by their agents even if those individuals are not formally classified as employees according to federal labor laws.
In the dissenting opinion of Thompson v. Clark, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that the amendment was intended to protect the rights of African Americans, not to grant them special privileges. He argued that the majority opinion was an attempt to expand the scope of the amendment beyond its original intent. He also argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which he argued did not grant African Americans any special privileges. He argued that the majority opinion was an attempt to expand the scope of the Act beyond its original intent. He concluded by arguing that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and that the decision should be reversed.
